On Apr 7, 10:41 pm, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> wrote:> On Wed, 7 Apr 2010 17:20:41 -0700 (PDT), "Raja, The Great" <zepflo...@yahoo.com>> wrote:>>>>>> >On Apr 7, 6:50 pm, SliceAndDice <visha...@gmail.com> wrote:> >> On Apr 7, 7:38 pm, Joubert <nofunnyexperiments...@yahoo.com> wrote:>> >> > 02/04/2010 13.12, wkhedr:>> >> > > she can marry who ever she wants, she is happy and she made her> >> > > choice.> >> > > People need to focus on their own business.>> >> > Although I obviously agree with you I point out that it is very easy for> >> > a western relativist who doesn't really care to say that people should> >> > mind their own business. Indian society however, does have a set of> >> > values and authorities that actually matter in real life as well as a> >> > "situation" with Pakistan.>> >> Speaking as an Indian, I have absolutely no issues with Sania getting> >> married to a Pakistani (and why should I, it is her own business). I> >> only wish, as she is a national icon and female role model that she> >> had chosen a better Pakistani to get married to. What kind of dumb ass> >> gets married to someone after seeing her pictures on the internet,> >> without even meeting her in person, despite being a celebrity> >> cricketer? What kind of idiot apologizes to "Muslims all over the> >> world" after losing a match to India? Does he not know that there are> >> Muslims in the Indian cricket team as well and more Muslims in India> >> than in Pakistan?>> >I like Shahid Afridi, she should have married him. He is at least> >talented. Who the fuck is Shoaib Malik, some talent tree, ass clown?>> Hey Raja why don't you go and rescue her?- Hide quoted text -

Handout photo shows a cranium forming part of the holotype skeleton ofAustralopithecus sediba from the Malapa site in South Africa Reuters –Handout photo released April 8, 2010 shows a cranium forming part ofthe holotype skeleton of Australopithecus …

A newfound ancient relative of humanity discovered in a cave in Africais a strong candidate for the immediate ancestor to the human lineage,an international team of scientists said today.

The remarkably well-preserved skeletons - a juvenile male and an adultfemale that lived nearly 2 million years ago - were found near thesurface in the remains of a deeply eroded limestone cave system.

Scientists don't know how they died, but it's possible they fell intothe cave.

The hominids had longer arms than we do, and smaller brains. But theirfaces were human-like, and scientists say the discovery represents animportant look into our pre-human past. Researchers stopped short ofcalling the new species, dubbed Australopithecus sediba, a missinglink.http://www.livescience.com/culture/091030-origins-top10-special.html

Click image to see more fossil photosAP

Australopithecus means 'southern ape.' Sediba means "natural spring,fountain or wellspring in Sotho, one of the 11 official languages ofSouth Africa," said researcher Lee Berger, a paleoanthropologist atthe University of Witwatersrand in South Africa. This was "deemed anappropriate name for a species that might be the point from which thegenus Homo arises," Berger said.

"This is one of the richest fossil sites in Africa," said researcherDaniel Farber, an earth scientist at the University of California atSanta Cruz. Nearly a third of the entire evidence for human origins inAfrica come from just a few sites in this region.

The sex of the fossils was determined from the shape of the jaws andhips, while analysis of the teeth suggest the young male was about 12years old and the adult female in her late 20s or early 30s. Sincethese specimens apparently died at or about the same time as eachother - anytime from hours to weeks apart - the researchers suggestthey would almost certainly have known each other in life and may verywell have been related.

Both stood upright a little more than 4 feet high (1.2 meters). "Thefemale probably weighed about 33 kilograms (72 lbs.) and the childabout 27 kilograms (59 lbs.) at the time of his death," Berger noted.The male was "right on the cusp of adulthood."

In many ways, the skeleton appears to be a mishmash of features, withsome resembling members of the human family tree and others more likethose of earlier ape-like hominids. (A hominid includes humans,chimpanzees, gorillas and their extinct ancestors, while homininsinclude those species after the human lineage split from that ofchimpanzees.)

Still, "the shape of the brain seems to be more advanced than that ofaustralopithecines," Berger noted. Indeed, a number of skull features,such as certain wide, broad lines in the bone, "are ones you tend toattribute to early members of genus Homo," Berger told LiveScience -that is to say, our lineage.

Human-like faces

A number of facial and dental features resemble those of early humanspecies, such as small teeth and a projecting nose. At the same time,"it had very long forearms - in fact, as long as an orangutans,"Berger said, similar to other members of the genus Australopithecus.Its fingers were curved, ideal for climbing trees, yet relativelyshort, like in humans.http://www.livescience.com/history/091026-top10-origins-mysteries.html

This indicates that A. sediba was able to walk upright in a stridingmanner.

Despite the differences in sex, the male and female skeletonsphysically resembled each other, something they seem to have had incommon with the human family tree but not with more distant relatives,such as chimpanzees. This could mean that A. sediba leaned towardsocial behavior "where you don't necessarily have a dominant alphamale and you are lowering violence between males who are probablyworking more cooperatively in a group," Berger suggested.

Time machine

A combination of dating techniques determined the rocks encasing thefossils are 1.95 million to 1.78 million years old.

"This fits in a critical moment in time," Berger explained. The humanlineage is thought to have originated between 1.8 million to 2 millionyears ago, but the hominid fossils unearthed so far from that periodhave proven remarkably poor, giving scientists a great deal of roomfor speculation as to how our family tree evolved.http://www.livescience.com/history/091026-top10-origins-mysteries.html

Due to A. sediba's age and physical traits, the researchers believe itis a convincing candidate for the immediate ancestor to the genusHomo. Based on its physique, they suggest its appearance signified thedawn of more energy-efficient forms of walking and running.

Many scientists believe the human genus Homo evolved fromAustralopithecus a little more than 2 million years ago, but thatpossibility has been widely debated, with other experts proposing anevolution from the genus Kenyanthropus. This new species might helpclear up that controversy.

"These fossils give us an extraordinarily detailed look into a newchapter of human evolution, and provide a window into a criticalperiod when hominids made the committed change from dependency on lifein the trees to life on the ground," Berger said. "Australopithecussediba appears to present a mosaic of features demonstrating an animalcomfortable in both worlds."http://www.livescience.com/history/091102-human-origins-start.html

Not a missing link

Based on its age and overall details of its body, researcherssuggested A. sediba descended from Australopithecus africanus, whichlived between 2 million and 3 million years ago and seemed to haveeaten mostly soft foods like fleshy fruits, young leaves and perhapssome meat. This new species appears more similar to humans than doAustralopithecus afarensis, most famed for Lucy, or Australopithecusgarhi, which was discovered in 1996.http://www.livescience.com/history/070717_lucy_link.html

"We are perhaps at the beginning of a more coherent view of thediversity of the earliest South African hominids," saidpaleoanthropologist Ian Tattersall at the American Museum of NaturalHistory in New York, who did not take part in this research. Thesespecimens provide "a better position to perceive the largerevolutionary patterns among hominids in a critical part of thetimeframe."

One of the biggest mysteries in human evolution is when the humangenus Homo arose.

"What sets us apart most from the australopithecines is the size ofour brain," Hawks said. With this new fossil, "while it has a somewhatHomo-like face, it doesn't have a Homo-like brain - it's smaller thanthe average for the earlier [Australopithecus] africanus."

"Maybe these findings suggest we look to South Africa for a possibleorigin for Homo, but there's not a smoking gun here," Hawks added.Intriguing fossils have also emerged in East Africa, and even Asia,and much remains unknown when it comes to Central Africa and WestAfrica. All these clues raise the question of which species were ourancestors and which just evolved similar traits in a parallel manner."We just need to find more skulls," he noted.

Regardless of whether they are a side-branch removed from humanity orwhether they are our ancestors, these new hominids are "a timemachine," Berger said, a window into the evolutionary pressures andprocesses during that crucial period when the human lineage arose.

Setting the scene

The sedimentary and geological setting the skeletons were found insuggests the two hominids died about the same time, shortly before amud flow carried them to where they were buried.

"We think the environment [Australopithecus] sediba lived in was, inmany ways, similar to the environment today," said researcher PaulDirks, a geologist at James Cook University in Australia. "Forexample, one with predominantly grassy plains, transected by morevegetated, wooded valleys. However, the rivers flowed in differentdirections and the landscape was not static, but changed all thetime."

The hominids were found along with at least 25 other species ofanimals, including saber-tooth cats, hyenas, a wild dog, a wildcat, ahorse, a species of antelope known as a kudu, and smaller animals suchas mice and rabbits. The fact that the hominid fossils were intact andwell-preserved suggests they were trapped in the cave beyond the reachof scavengers that could have scattered their skeletons.

All these fossils were preserved in a hard, concrete-like substanceknown as calcified clastic sediment that formed at the bottom of whatappears to be a shallow underground lake or pool.

"We believe the cave originally was deep and only accessible throughvertical entranceways, which made it hard for animals to escape oncethey became trapped," Farber said.

Cause of death?

The cave would have likely once been some 100 to 150 feet deep (30 to45 meters). "We are looking at very eroded and denuded portions ofthis cave system, where nature has exposed what had once been the deepreaches," Farber said.

The cave might have acted as a death trap for animals seeking water.

"We would speculate that perhaps at the time of their death, the areain which [Australopithecus] sediba lived experienced a severedrought," Dirks said. "Animals may have smelled the water, ventured intoo deep, fallen down hidden shafts in the pitch dark, or got lost anddied."

Although researchers can only speculate on how these hominids died,Farber speculated that they probably fell into the cave. "Even now,there are places where you can fall into unexpected cracks in thislandscape," he said.

A deeper understanding of the environment these hominids lived incould yield critical insights into their evolution. For instance, wasthere anything about their surroundings that might have driven them tostand upright?

"Those were the original questions that we will continue to look at aspart of the broader study," Farber said. The scientists will detailtheir findings in the April 9 issue of the journal Science.

A child's discovery

The scientists began the research that uncovered A. sediba in March of2008, when Berger and Dirks started mapping the roughly 130 caves and20 fossil sites identified in the region over the past severaldecades. By July that year, the 3-D capabilities of Google Earth thenallowed Berger to identify nearly 500 new caves from satellite images,which further research discovered included more than 25 fossil sitespreviously unknown to science.

"It is a powerful, powerful tool for science," Berger said of GoogleEarth. "I happen to know paleontologists around Africa who are usingthat tool to hunt for fossils."

Two weeks after that, Berger explored this fossil site with his nine-year-old son Matthew and his postdoctoral student Job Kibii.

"Matthew ran off the site, about 15 meters (50 feet) off-site, andwithin about a minute-and-a-half, he said, 'Dad, I found a fossil,"Berger said. "I thought it would be an antelope fossil, because that'susually all we find, but as I walked toward him, I found he found ahominid clavicle (collarbone) sticking out of the rock." That bone wasthe first remains found of A. sediba - the collarbone of the juvenile.

Fossil preparators have worked arduously over the last two years toextract the rest of the bones from the rock. In celebration of thisfind, the children of South Africa have been invited to a competitionto decide what the name for the juvenile skeleton will be.

The future of the past

In the meantime, the researchers said there are at least two otherskeletons emerging from the site. He also refused to confirm or denywhether they might have found any tools these hominids might have leftbehind.

"The presence of tools is something that would have enormousramifications, obviously," Berger said. "We're treading carefully inthat area."

The skulls from the fossils they have retrieved so far are well-preserved enough to reconstruct their faces, Berger noted.

"Sometime in the future, we will look into the face of sediba," hesaid.

The researchers might even be able to retrieve DNA or proteins fromthe site.

"We are seeing some organics preserved in various parts of theassemblage," Berger noted.

LiveScience.com chronicles the daily advances and innovations made inscience and technology. We take on the misconceptions that often popup around scientific discoveries and deliver short, provocativeexplanations with a certain wit and style. Check out our sciencevideos, Trivia & Quizzes and Top 10s. Join our community to debate hot-button issues like stem cells, climate change and evolution. You canalso sign up for free newsletters, register for RSS feeds and get coolgadgets at the LiveScience Store.Related Searches:

IMPOSSIBLE!!!! Earth is only 6,000 years old. Satan putthose bones there to confuse us or God did to test us. I can'tremember which one is right. Well now that being said we can move on to more commentsabout this story.

A nine-year old CHILD found the first of these importantfossils! Fantastic! At least he won't grow up to be deluded by thebible-believers "young earth" myth. Too bad so many American childrenare brainwashed with bible-thumping nonsense, and that withconservative control over science textbooks, many more WILL be.

Interesting, but I don't buy it. In every species, when onespecies evolves into another species, the previous one disappears. So,if we evolved from monkeys and apes, why are there still monkeys andapes? It takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does tobelieve in creation.

It is interesting how the evolutionist continue to insistman evolved from apes and the earth is billions years old. There arestill no intermediate transitional forms. There is natural selectionand adaptation but no macroevolution. Dogs still beget dogs and catsstill beget cats even though there are different varieties within thekind. These scientist have rejected the truth about the Creatorand have chosen to believe in fary tales for grown ups. The key totrue scientific understanding is believe in a recent creation and aglobal cataclysmic flood in the days of Noah which would explain mostof the fossil record. These evolutionist just can't exept the idea that they willhave to answer to the Creator one day for their sin. Jesus himselfattested to the historical accuracy of the Genesis record. I wouldrather believe God's Son than athiests with an agenda.

lets continue with the discovery of who we are. that isamazing that we are able to, soon, prove who we are. i hope that childunderstands the discovery they made. hopefully we can soon let ourchildren THINK for themselves an not be forced to belive in a figmentof a 2000 year old mans imagination. why would we want our future inthe hands of people who belive in a tribal view of creation, whenevolution has proved it self true.why should our leaders be people whowont belive in the realitys of the facts. lets hope that we find therest of our past an can soon see the true evolution of man.

I just want to make people, who don't already know, aware.The dates they come up with are not accurate the dating techniquesused to come up with these numbers are VERY inaccurate beyond a fewthousand years. So how can they know it was "2 million years" ago? Andwhat really bugs me about these articles is how the author tries topresent all the information as "fact" when it is based on theory. Theold saying "Don't believe everything you see on TV" would applynowadays. DON"T BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOU READ ON THE INTERNET.

In about a year, a very small article will appear(not on thefront page of Yahoo), stating that this hominid is not an ancestor ofus. Happens every time. And there are some of us who believe that theuniverse is about 15 billion years old, and the earth is about 4billion years old...Old Earth Creationists. Not to mention there areThiestic Evolutionists. So don't let that stop you from loving andserving Jesus.

I agree completely, If we all evolved from apes, why arethere still apes? Same applies to fish, etc... People who believe inevolution are looking for a way to fill the gap that not believing inGod creates in their lives.

Of course there is only one type of human left! We ate allthe others! LOL Hope they find more and I hope we get to read aboutit!!

Replies (1) * ONE TIME 47 users liked this comment 46 users disliked this comment ONE TIME 19 hours ago

First, we find something and title it "May be a humanancestor." Step two, say that it is and get it published in a schooltext book. Step 3, after some 25 years we learn that it wasn't what wethought it was and keep publishing that textbook as if it is true. ...

How do you know its that old? The answer is you don't. It iswrong to say something is that old when you have no idea. And as forthis "missing link" you will never find it. God created the world. Itsas simple as that. We did not evolve from a monkey.

This is not the forum for a religious debate; feel free toblog or chat elsewhere if you have theological issues on this. It really is amazing that a child made such a find; or isit? Children do tend to dig, quite a bit. The surprising part may bethat the child notified the correct people without continuing to digand causing serious damage to the discovery.

when one species evolves into a new species it does notautomatically mean the elimination fo the old species.....I don't minda person choosing the bible over science but I find it troubling howmany anti-evolutionists clearly don't understand the theory in theslightest

The earth is only 6000 years old. About 4500 years ago there was acatastrophic global flood, which changed things quite a bit. However,there are no "human ancestors". Humans, and all animals originated atthe same time........the sixth day.

God has complete control over everything including time, youshould read "The Science of God: The Convergence of Scientific andBiblical Wisdom," Gerald L. Schroeder, I'm frankly tired of atheisticcomments against Christians, our founding fathers were Christian andthe reason this country is going down is because of people like youthat have no concept of sin. So instead of attacking me back, go readsomething Mr. and Mrs. scientist.

I swear to god (haha a pun), you religious people are all idiotsin denial. The Earth is certainly more than a measly 10,000 years old.Heck that was the last ice age! Life began on this planet 4 BILLIONyears ago. Finally more proof of evolution. Science. Facts. Take thatin your little "belief system". We have facts, you have random ideas.

Here is a thought... Jesus Christ died for ALL OF US, AND ALL OFOUR SINS, this skeleton may be an extinct species but NOT a humanancestor. I firmly believe in the Bible, that being said, weChristians NEED TO LOVE THOSE WHO DON'T BELIEVE; NOT ATTACK THEM!Evolution is WRONG, ---IF WE ARE DESCENDANTS OF APES THEN SCIENCEWOULD BE ABLE TO MIX HUMAN EGGS WITH PRIMATE SPERM OR VICE VERSAPRODUCING OFFSPRING. THEY HAVE BEEN UNABLE TO DO SUCH A THING.----Horses and donkeys produce (sterile) mules.... therefore (IF)evolution was right and it is NOT, but if it was then there should bean offspring which would be produced via the same technique... We areto tell the world about Jesus, not attack the Lost or belittle them.you will win the lost with love not hate or anger.

God made these creatures and they must be however remotelyrelated to our first parents. We will not gain more understandingbeyond the literal details of the Genesis creation accounts by hurlinginsults at each other.

The earth is only 6000 years old. About 4500 years ago therewas a catastrophic global flood, which changed things quite a bit.However, there are no "human ancestors". Humans, and all animalsoriginated at the same time........the sixth day.

Ray Fischer wrote:> regn.pickfod <regn@mysoul.cop.au> wrote:>> Ray Fischer wrote:>>> regn.pickfod <regn@mysoul.cop.au> wrote:>>>> Ray Fischer wrote:>>>>> regn.pickfod <regn@mysoul.cop.au> wrote:>>>>>> Ray Fischer wrote:>>>>>>> regn.pickfod <regn@mysoul.cop.au> wrote:>>>>>>>> Ray Fischer wrote:>>>>>>>>> regn.pickfod <regn@mysoul.cop.au> wrote:>>>>>>>>>>>>> So Homosexuals care nothing for the truth and care only about>>>>>>>>>> rationalising their insane hatred.?>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, that's still you.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The only Queer here is you, girly-boyo.>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And yet you're the one who thinks about gay sex so much.>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not the one dishonestly snipping the posts in defense>>>>>> of Homosexuality.>>>>>>>>>> Neither am I, bigot. But you are the one who cares deeply about>>>>> the sex lives of homosexuals.>>>>>>>> Of course you do.>>>>>> Nope. Still you. In fact you care so much that you're wanting to>>> ignore Christ's teaching in order to have the government inflict>>> your hatred upon them.>>>> No hatred.>> Your wish to persecute other reveals your hate.>

You go round in circles. I want laws preventing unsafe sexualacts that facilitate the spread of disease.I am not targettingHomoexuals and it is really juvenile to keep claiming it is hatebased.

You are inferring Homosexuals can only be Homosexuals if theyengage in unsafe sexual acts. now that is a prejudiced andhatefull thing to say

>> just some particular health and safety laws that would see>> That's a stupid lie, asshole.

what is it you are calling a lie? and don't call me asshole.I'm an Australian.It's Arsehole in Australian. Asshole is a stupid Yankee insult.

== 2 of 6 ==Date: Fri, Apr 9 2010 4:21 pm From: "W.T.S."

"regn.pickfod" <regn@mysoul.cop.au> wrote in message news:4bbfad06@news.comindico.com.au...> Ray Fischer wrote:>> regn.pickfod <regn@mysoul.cop.au> wrote:>>> Ray Fischer wrote:>>>> regn.pickfod <regn@mysoul.cop.au> wrote:>>>>> Ray Fischer wrote:>>>>>> regn.pickfod <regn@mysoul.cop.au> wrote:>>>>>>> Ray Fischer wrote:>>>>>>>> regn.pickfod <regn@mysoul.cop.au> wrote:>>>>>>>>> Ray Fischer wrote:>>>>>>>>>> regn.pickfod <regn@mysoul.cop.au> wrote:>>>>>>>>>>> So Homosexuals care nothing for the truth and care only about>>>>>>>>>>> rationalising their insane hatred.?>>>>>>>>>> No, that's still you.>>>>>>>>> The only Queer here is you, girly-boyo.>>>>>>>> And yet you're the one who thinks about gay sex so much.>>>>>>> I'm not the one dishonestly snipping the posts in defense>>>>>>> of Homosexuality.>>>>>> Neither am I, bigot. But you are the one who cares deeply about>>>>>> the sex lives of homosexuals.>>>>> Of course you do.>>>> Nope. Still you. In fact you care so much that you're wanting to>>>> ignore Christ's teaching in order to have the government inflict>>>> your hatred upon them.>>> No hatred.>> Your wish to persecute other reveals your hate.> You go round in circles. I want laws preventing unsafe sexual> acts that facilitate the spread of disease.I am not targetting> Homoexuals and it is really juvenile to keep claiming it is hate> based.> You are inferring Homosexuals can only be Homosexuals if they> engage in unsafe sexual acts. now that is a prejudiced and> hatefull thing to say>>> just some particular health and safety laws that would see>> That's a stupid lie, asshole.> what is it you are calling a lie? and don't call me asshole.I'm an > Australian.> It's Arsehole in Australian. Asshole is a stupid Yankee insult.If we outlaw unsafe sexual acts, we'd have to outlaw any form of sex between husband and wife, even for the purpose of pro-creation. After all, you don't know where a husband/wife has been when you're not around.Church, bad. Sex, good. Medical science, good too.----------------------------------------http://folding.stanford.eduSave lives, visit today!

== 3 of 6 ==Date: Fri, Apr 9 2010 6:32 pm From: "regn.pickfod"

W.T.S. wrote:> "regn.pickfod" <regn@mysoul.cop.au> wrote in message> news:4bbfad06@news.comindico.com.au...>> Ray Fischer wrote:>>> regn.pickfod <regn@mysoul.cop.au> wrote:>>>> Ray Fischer wrote:>>>>> regn.pickfod <regn@mysoul.cop.au> wrote:>>>>>> Ray Fischer wrote:>>>>>>> regn.pickfod <regn@mysoul.cop.au> wrote:>>>>>>>> Ray Fischer wrote:>>>>>>>>> regn.pickfod <regn@mysoul.cop.au> wrote:>>>>>>>>>> Ray Fischer wrote:>>>>>>>>>>> regn.pickfod <regn@mysoul.cop.au> wrote:>>>>>>>>>>>> So Homosexuals care nothing for the truth and care only>>>>>>>>>>>> about rationalising their insane hatred.?>>>>>>>>>>> No, that's still you.>>>>>>>>>> The only Queer here is you, girly-boyo.>>>>>>>>> And yet you're the one who thinks about gay sex so much.>>>>>>>> I'm not the one dishonestly snipping the posts in defense>>>>>>>> of Homosexuality.>>>>>>> Neither am I, bigot. But you are the one who cares deeply about>>>>>>> the sex lives of homosexuals.>>>>>> Of course you do.>>>>> Nope. Still you. In fact you care so much that you're wanting to>>>>> ignore Christ's teaching in order to have the government inflict>>>>> your hatred upon them.>>>> No hatred.>>> Your wish to persecute other reveals your hate.>> You go round in circles. I want laws preventing unsafe sexual>> acts that facilitate the spread of disease.I am not targetting>> Homoexuals and it is really juvenile to keep claiming it is hate>> based.>> You are inferring Homosexuals can only be Homosexuals if they>> engage in unsafe sexual acts. now that is a prejudiced and>> hatefull thing to say>>>> just some particular health and safety laws that would see>>> That's a stupid lie, asshole.>> what is it you are calling a lie? and don't call me asshole.I'm an>> Australian.>> It's Arsehole in Australian. Asshole is a stupid Yankee insult.> If we outlaw unsafe sexual acts, we'd have to outlaw any form of sex> between husband and wife, even for the purpose of pro-creation. After all, > you don't know where a husband/wife has been when you're> not around. Church, bad. Sex, good. Medical science, good too.> ----------------------------------------> http://folding.stanford.edu> Save lives, visit today!

regn.pickfod <regn@mysoul.cop.au> wrote:>Ray Fischer wrote:>> regn.pickfod <regn@mysoul.cop.au> wrote:>>> Ray Fischer wrote:>>>> regn.pickfod <regn@mysoul.cop.au> wrote:>>>>> Ray Fischer wrote:>>>>>> regn.pickfod <regn@mysoul.cop.au> wrote:>>>>>>> Ray Fischer wrote:>>>>>>>> regn.pickfod <regn@mysoul.cop.au> wrote:>>>>>>>>> Ray Fischer wrote:>>>>>>>>>> regn.pickfod <regn@mysoul.cop.au> wrote:>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So Homosexuals care nothing for the truth and care only about>>>>>>>>>>> rationalising their insane hatred.?>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, that's still you.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The only Queer here is you, girly-boyo.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And yet you're the one who thinks about gay sex so much.>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not the one dishonestly snipping the posts in defense>>>>>>> of Homosexuality.>>>>>>>>>>>> Neither am I, bigot. But you are the one who cares deeply about>>>>>> the sex lives of homosexuals.>>>>>>>>>> Of course you do.>>>>>>>> Nope. Still you. In fact you care so much that you're wanting to>>>> ignore Christ's teaching in order to have the government inflict>>>> your hatred upon them.>>>>>> No hatred.>>>> Your wish to persecute other reveals your hate.>>You go round in circles. I want laws preventing unsafe sexual>acts that facilitate the spread of disease.

>>>> Nope. Still you. In fact you care so much that you're wanting to>>>> ignore Christ's teaching in order to have the government inflict>>>> your hatred upon them.>>>>>> No hatred.>>>> Your wish to persecute other reveals your hate.>>You go round in circles. I want laws preventing unsafe sexual>acts that facilitate the spread of disease.

Quite the anti-sex fascist, aren't you? You want to impose adictatorship where people's private sex lives are monitored for state compliance. And why? Because you think that you know what'sbest for people?

It turned out to be a storm in a teacup when, after stridentlydenying that he had married her some years ago, former Pakistanicricket captain Shoaib Malik suddenly capitulated and divorcedHyderabad-based Ayesha Siddiqui. Community elders claimed to havenegotiated the parting of ways, as per Islamic law.

While Indian tennis star Sania Mirza can now seal her union withMalik, as planned, this should not be treated as the end of thematter. This is because the acrimonious dispute over the cricketer'smarital status, with the man and his fianc�e denying that he had awife, in the face of all evidence to the contrary, focuses attentionon some unsavoury aspects of celebrity culture. The compulsions ofglamour and success eclipsing normal human responses and concerns,the two sports stars behaved as if they were a law unto themselvesuntil Malik was forced to buckle down under public pressure.

Worse, as a foreign national, one might have expected him to be morecircumspect on alien soil. But he continued to lie through his teethalmost till the very end. And Sania, considered to be an icon forteenage girls, lost much of her lustre through her complicity in hisplay-acting. As a prospective power couple, which could win lucrativeendorsement contracts across continents, and remain in the spotlight,Sania and Shoaib are seen to have thrown all caution to the winds.The affair also raises questions about the implementation of Muslimpersonal law, with respect to marriage, in India and Pakistan. WhileMuslim men in India are accorded the right to take four wives freely,in Pakistan, for the man to marry again, the first or otherwife/wives apparently need to formally grant consent. And in thematter of divorce, a period of reconciliation, involving the couple,is mandatory. Here, the man can divorce a wife simply be pronouncingtalaq three times.

The most offensive aspect of the episode is the humiliation sufferedby his first wife, who not only publicly suffered his rejection buthad to explain why he had abandoned her. Apparently, after the nikaahin June 2002, he began to berate her for being too over-weight andungainly. This would be ludicrous if it were not so overtly sexist.In his own defence, Malik vilified Ayesha for being a terribleletdown after alluring him with photographs of a presumably slenderfemale. Ayesha's mother stated on television that her daughter evenwent under the knife to have some of the fat removed surgically, atgreat peril to her life. It is not a far-fetched claim but a fairlycommon situation, with partners' taunts forcing many women in theWest, and now, increasingly, here too among the urban upwardly mobilesection, to resort to plastic surgeons for a boost in self-esteem.Since females are commodified more than males, they tend to be moresensitive to taunts about appearance. Thus traumatised, she tried tomake herself more acceptable to Malik though to no avail.

Apparently, a simple apology from the player and pronouncement ofdivorce would have been sufficient for Ayesha and her parents toagree to his marrying Sania. But his refusal to acknowledge themarriage raised their hackles and goaded them to confront him. Theyfinally filed a case against the cricketer under Section 506(criminal intimidation); 420 (cheating); and 498(A) (dowryharassment). While the cases have now been withdrawn, the public spathas left an ugly impression, to the discredit to the celebrity duo.One of the mediators in the dispute stated on television that theyforced a truce in the interests of relations between India andPakistan, among other reasons, as the situation seemed to bespiralling out of control. There is truth in the assertion as temperson both sides of the border had begun to flare up over the issue.Here, women activists had also jumped into the fray on Ayesha'sbehalf; a Kolkata imam was reported to have come out against Malik'sdenial of his marriage; and Sania was being castigated for hercomplicity.

The one worthwhile lesson to be drawn from the affair is that theIndian understanding of Muslim personal law with respect to marriageand divorce is much more liberal here than in some Islamic countries.The laxity in rules may be the reason why Malik and Sania chose toget married in India, taking advantage of the liberal application ofMuslim law.

o Not for commercial use. Solely to be fairly used for the educationalpurposes of research and open discussion. The contents of this post may nothave been authored by, and do not necessarily represent the opinion of theposter. The contents are protected by copyright law and the exemption forfair use of copyrighted works. o If you send private e-mail to me, it will likely not be read,considered or answered if it does not contain your full legal name, currente-mail and postal addresses, and live-voice telephone number. o Posted for information and discussion. Views expressed by others arenot necessarily those of the poster who may or may not have read the article.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This article may contain copyrighted material the use ofwhich may or may not have been specifically authorized by the copyrightowner. This material is being made available in efforts to advance theunderstanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic,democratic, scientific, social, and cultural, etc., issues. It is believedthat this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material asprovided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed withoutprofit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the includedinformation for research, comment, discussion and educational purposes bysubscribing to USENET newsgroups or visiting web sites. For more informationgo to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtmlIf you wish to use copyrighted material from this article for purposes ofyour own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from thecopyright owner.

Since newsgroup posts are being removedby forgery by one or more net terrorists,this post may be reposted several times.